@Bread_or_Decide: The engine affects A LOT more than just the graphics. When modders who love their old ugly looking games so much that they're trying to recreate them in an old ugly looking game BEG Bethesda for a new engine... maybe it's about more than just graphics. (I'm referencing: https://www.overclock3d.net/news/software/skyblivion_modder_asks_bethesda_to_use_a_new_engine_for_the_elder_scrolls_6/1)
If you spend any time talking to modders about Bethesda games, the term "engine limitation" comes up a lot.
@Mogan: Yeah, people hate on the visuals of FO4 in really absurd ways. It wasn't the best looking game, but it wasn't nearly as bad as people say. What IS that bad is that this both looks no better AND performs way worse.
@spacemanspiff94: Don't let the size of Bethesda's patches fool you. Because Bethesda packages their game files into archives, whenever they want to change any file in the archive, the player has to download the entire archive again (though this time it will include the new file). So, pretty much all their patches are going to be 30GB even if they don't change much. (That's why the game downloaded a 54 GB patch and was... 54 GB. It just replaced all the original files.)
@Oren76: No. It's because this game does very little better than Fallout 4 and does A LOT worse. There are major problems with combat, narrative, graphics, performance and bugs. There are fundamental design choices that alienate both fallout fans (no NPCs, real time VATS) and survival fans (Carebear PvP, no consequence for death). When we say the game sucks... it's cause actually sucks.
RS13's comments